of the instructor's was right.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter
Stephenson
Sent: Thursday, 11 September 2008 7:08 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
Do you mean maybe he was suicidal and Peter stopped him?
Well then again maybe he had a plan which you stuffed up. I'd have
told you to fly the damn thing yourself. Maybe he just went along to
get along and you are delusional.
Mike
Borgelt
At 07:08 AM 11/09/2008, you wrote:
Further
, September 11, 2008 2:12 PM
Subject: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
If the GFA accepts, mandates, hints at or even vaguely accepts that 60 degree
banks at low level/half circuit height are the way to go when turning back from
a rope break, I predict that the accident
- Original Message -
From: Alan Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight: for
avery rare reality
Cable breaks on aerotow are rare but low level emergencies extend beyond a
breaking tow line. Tug problems requiring the glider to release are not
uncommon. I've witnessed a tug starved of fuel at 200' (tug pilot forgot to
change tanks), I know of tug engine failures occurring at low level, and
I have a tug come back from 100hly and then the oil from tug streamed out
and the glider pilot just hung on!! The glider pilot eventually pulled off
and Pawnee landed with 2 litres of oil!! (normally 9 to 11 litres)
On a side line with annual checks I am tried of Stir fry pilots (ie move
the
Further to this email, I have just remembered the last quite experienced
pilot that I pulled the bung on at 400'. He attempted to turn with the
nose above the horizon which I stopped, and then proceeeded to become
indecisive and I had to take over as the option he was going to take
could have
At 07:08 AM 11/09/2008, you wrote:
Further to this email, I have just remembered the last quite
experienced pilot that I pulled the bung on at 400'. He attempted
to turn with the nose above the horizon which I stopped, and then
proceeeded to become indecisive and I had to take over as the
At 03:02 PM 8/09/2008, you wrote:
Such manoevures need to be demonstrated at altitude, i.e.
demonstrate a 180 degree change of heading with minimum height loss,
in a Grob G103, banked at 60 degrees, 60 knots airspeed, in still
air, height loss in a 180 degree turn is 150', with a diameter of
Why the 60 degrees bank for minimum height loss?
Strictly you are correct, for minimum height loss you would have zero angle of
bank, but the you would be able to get around.
The 60 degree bank provides you with a smaller turn radius, it is a compromise
between height loss and getting the
To be subjective, the maths need to be done AT 400ft and counting !!
Col
Texler, Michael wrote:
Why the 60 degrees bank for minimum height loss?
Strictly you are correct, for minimum height loss you would have zero angle of
bank, but the you would be able to get around.
The 60 degree bank
Michael
If your still doing the maths the ambulance has arrived, and
the police are ringing the relatives !
The aircraft will be off line for a while
Cheers
Col
Colin Collyer wrote:
To be subjective, the maths need to be done AT 400ft and counting !!
Col
Texler, Michael wrote:
2008 10:15 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
To be subjective, the maths need to be done AT 400ft and counting !!
Col
Texler, Michael wrote:
Why the 60 degrees bank for minimum height loss
Mike Borgelt wrote:
At 07:08 AM 11/09/2008, you wrote:
Further to this email, I have just remembered the last quite
experienced pilot that I pulled the bung on at 400'. He attempted to
turn with the nose above the horizon which I stopped, and then
proceeeded to become indecisive and I had
If the GFA accepts, mandates, hints at or even vaguely accepts that 60 degree
banks at low level/half circuit height are the way to go when turning back from
a rope break, I predict that the accident rate will soar (pardon the pun) with
spiralling-in being the new buzzword and more
I agree with MT as well. As an instructor, I only ever pull the bung if
I am absolutely confident that I can handle the emergency if the
student/pilot-on-check stuffs up or takes a poor option. My hand is
almost on the stick to prevent an error.
It is never below 300' AGL unless I can land
: Re: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Received: Monday, 8 September, 2008, 4:53 PM
I agree with MT as well. As an instructor, I only ever pull
the bung if
I am absolutely
I doubt there is any training value at all in 400 to 500 feet.
I believe that there is some training value in such a flight:
The ability to fly and manoevure confidently at low level without getting
ground fright. (i.e. if I had the option to do a low level circuit for a safe
landing on field
18 matches
Mail list logo
